SATYA NARAYAN ONKARLALJI PATIDAR Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER UJJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER before this Court is an election petitioner. He had challenged the election of respondent No. 2, Prabhu who was declared as elected to the post, of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam.

(2.) ELECTIONS to the post of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam were held on January 29, 2005. Respondent No. 2 Prabhu, was declared as a winning candidate. Vide an election petition filed on February 28, 2005 under the provisions of section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evem Gram swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the petitioner challenged the aforesaid election. Vide an order dated July 26, 2005, the election petition filed by the said election petitioner was dismissed holding the same to be barred by limitation.

(3.) IT further appears from the record that the order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority (Competent Authority under section 122 of the act) was challenged by the election petitioner under section 91 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. An order dated November 8, 2005 appears to have been passed by the appellate Authority whereby the aforesaid appeal filed by the election petitioner was dismissed by observing that no sufficient cause had been shown for delay in filing the election petition. Thereafter a review/revision petition was filed by the election petitioner against the order dated November 8, 2005. The said review/revision petition has been dismissed by the State Government vide order dated August 21, 2006. In the order dated August 21, 2006, the State government has noticed that the Rules 3 and 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules as well as section 91 of the Act were not applicable to an election petition. Although, certain observations on merit of the controversy have also been made in the said order but ultimately, the revision petition has been dismissed as not maintainable.